View full case

ELSIE ANG v. DR. ERNIEFEL GRAGEDA

FACTS:

Janet Ang underwent liposuction surgery at a cosmetic clinic, which was performed by Dr. Grageda. However, she experienced seizures during the operation and ultimately died. Janet's father filed a criminal complaint, which led to the acquittal of Dr. Grageda. The court ruled that the liposuction surgery was not the cause of Janet's death. Ang Ho Chem, Janet's father, appealed the decision on the civil aspect of the case, but the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required appeal memorandum within the specified period.

During the proceedings, Janet's daughter, Elsie Ang, informed the court of her mother's death and named herself as the substitute and representative. Instead of filing a petition for review, Elsie Ang filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the dismissal of the appeal and denial of the motion for reconsideration.

The petitioner filed an appeal memorandum within the extended period allowed by the court. However, the RTC dismissed the appeal before the extended period for filing the memorandum had expired. The Court of Appeals later dismissed the petitioner's petition for certiorari, stating that the proper remedy should have been a petition for review. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that there was no appeal from an order dismissing or disallowing an appeal. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.

The petitioner also filed a motion for reconsideration before the RTC but failed to file the required appeal memorandum within the given period. The RTC dismissed her appeal for failure to comply. The petitioner argued that the dismissal was unjust and arbitrary since the respondent did not oppose her motions and did not suffer any injury from the delay. She also claimed that certiorari should be allowed due to the substantive issues raised in her petition. On the merits of her appeal, she challenged the trial court's decision as collusive and anomalous, claiming that the standard of care was not observed. The petitioner insisted on damages and attorney's fees. The respondent argued that the RTC did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal and contended that the proper remedy for the petitioner was a petition for review. The petitioner countered that certiorari may still be entertained in the interest of justice.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the December 2, 2002 Order of the RTC dismissing petitioner's appeal for her failure to file her memorandum despite her successive motions for extension of time to do so was a final order.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner should be granted an extension of time to file her Memorandum

  3. Whether or not the failure to file the Memorandum is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal

  4. Whether Atty. Solis was negligent in failing to file the required memorandum within the reglementary period.

  5. Whether petitioner can use respondent's silence as a basis for her failure to file the memorandum.

RULING:

  1. The remedy of petitioner from said Order of the RTC, as well as the January 20, 2003 Order denying her motion for reconsideration, was to appeal by filing a petition for review in the CA under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the questioned decision/final order final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the judgment or final order, much less to entertain the appeal. When the RTC issued its December 2, 2002 and January 20, 2003 Orders, the court was exercising its appellate jurisdiction over the judgment rendered by the MeTC of Muntinlupa City. To reiterate, the December 2, 2002 Order of the RTC denying the appeal of petitioner was a final order, appealable to the CA via petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court within the 15-day reglementary period thereof.

  2. No, the petitioner should not be granted an extension of time to file her Memorandum. The petitioner had repeatedly sought extensions of time to file her Memorandum, representing that it was in the "final stages" of preparation. However, she failed to submit any valid reason or justification for the repeated delays.

  3. Yes, the failure to file the Memorandum is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. The rules require the appellant to file a Memorandum within a specified period, failure of which may result in the dismissal of the appeal. In this case, the petitioner failed to comply with the court's order despite multiple opportunities and extensions given to her.

  4. Yes, Atty. Solis was negligent in failing to file the required memorandum within the reglementary period. The grant or denial of motions for extension lies within the discretion of the court, and the movant should exercise due diligence in filing the pleading within the granted extension. Atty. Solis assumed that his motion for extension would be granted and failed to ascertain if it had been acted upon. His negligence led to the dismissal of the appeal. (Partial Digest: Atty. Lorna P. Solis v. Agnes Ang: G.R. No. 157679, June 8, 2007)

  5. No, petitioner cannot use respondent's silence as a basis for her failure to file the memorandum. The administration of justice should not be delayed at the whims and caprices of the parties, and respondent's silence does not excuse petitioner's neglect. (Partial Digest: Atty. Lorna P. Solis v. Agnes Ang: G.R. No. 157679, June 8, 2007)

PRINCIPLES:

  • Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to do so renders the questioned decision/final order final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the judgment or final order, much less to entertain the appeal.

  • Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be a substitute for a lost appeal. It is not a procedural devise to deprive the winning party of the fruits of the judgment in their favor. Courts should frown upon any scheme to prolong litigations. Once a judgment or order becomes final, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest.

  • Under Section 7, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure of the appellant to file a memorandum within fifteen (15) days from notice from the clerk of court is a ground for the dismissal of an appeal.

  • The filing of a Memorandum is a mandatory requirement in appellate proceedings.

  • The failure to file a Memorandum within the prescribed period may be a ground for the dismissal of the appeal.

  • Extensions of time to file a Memorandum may be granted for valid and justifiable reasons, but repeated requests for extension without valid justification may not be granted.

  • The grant or denial of motions for extension lies within the sound discretion of the court.

  • A lawyer is obliged to serve his client with competence, diligence, and wholehearted fidelity.

  • A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

  • It is the duty of the movant of extension to exercise due diligence and file the pleading within the extension granted by the court.

  • Under Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer should not let the period lapse without submitting the same and making an explanation for failing to do so.

  • The administration of justice should not be delayed or derailed at the whims and caprices of the parties.

  • In a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law can be raised, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.